tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN January 20, 2014 1:25pm-1:31pm EST
it? you see, i'm trying to show you something. >> thank you. >> good evening. i am from the harvard extension school. i am sure you would already agree, but in a country that has enforced legal segregation and slavery, purpose and consequence as a extensive history to prove they should carry the most weight. if you can disclose, is there discord between the judges about what should be valued more, and in terms of hierarchy importance --the six pillars you had mentioned in terms of making a decision. >> not too much. have onscalia and i several occasions spoken to audiences together. we spoke to a large student audience in lubbock, texas. it is always interesting to me. i hope it is interesting to him.
we discuss these things. senator leahy was chairman of the senate judiciary committee and asked us to come to talk about it to the committee. you had quite a few people there, senators from both askeds, and they substantive questions and did not make it into some kind of clinically oriented thing. we sort of talk to them about this. i thought there were good questions, good discussions, very substantive. now he has taken that and made tapes and shows it in schools in vermont. so we get some discussion. question,nd on that when you are voting together for you are notme, saying i think the text takes me here, the history takes me here, it is much quicker than that. >> the way the conference works, we will hear these cases. for example, today, tomorrow,
wednesday. procedure is more important in the court then you think. you have to decide. that is the job. so we get all the briefs from the case two weeks before. briefs but ihose will divide the 12 for the oral arguments session, which is two weeks alone. monday, tuesday wednesday. thursday we are supposed to be thinking and friday we are in conference. among my law them clerks, i have four. you each read three sets and you better know it better than i do. then i will have a discussion with them. i will talk about what they should write as a memo, things i want answered. then we will have another discussion. by the time of oral arguments, i have read the briefs, my law clerks have read it, i have talked to her, i have talked to
them, i have a memo, i have read are onese questions that we think we know the argument. we do not 20 or hear more of these basic arguments. we were there really to ask questions. that helps much more than people think. .t forces you it is amazing. it forces you to get your thoughts. in the day before the conference, you are thinking, i will have to say something in this conference. what am i going to say? just the conference it is united. justices in the morning. we discussed the case. we each have a book for each case. it has the name of the other justices and places to write.
the first thing that happens is the chief justice says, the issue in this case is this and that. my view is. it is sustained, probably five minutes. my view is this and that. i would vote to affirm or reverse. i have the essence of what he is inking. then it goes to justice scalia, and that justice kennedy, justice thomas, justice ginsburg , me, justice alito, justice sotomayor, and justice kagan. each of us will take note of what the others say. nobody speaks twice until everyone has spoken once. that is a very good rule in any small group. everybody feels they have gotten a fair chance. then there will be back-and- forth discussions. probably a little bit more with chief justice roberts then with red whisks -- rehnquist. , andoint of the discussion
the point of what i have said is not to say that i have a better argument. there are hundreds of arguments. it is what i think. the reason why i am waiting in this direction is -- and it better be truthful. that is why they are in private. i do not have to worry about can trym saying, i things on. there is some discussion back and forth. on the basis of that, people would cast a tentative vote, but it is less tentative than it would have been the day before. and it is less tentative than it would have been before the oral arguments. that, the chief justice will assign someone to be the rapporteur. he is much more constrained in that. gets one case before they get two. by the way, half of our cases are unanimous.